The Canton advocate. [volume] (Canton, D.T. [S.D.]) 1877-1897, 1887-09-15

The city council proceedings of the
past two week. furnish some interest
ing reading for Canton voters. A
perusal of the routine report will ex-
plain all. In the first place Aldermen
Keller ard Hull refused to attend the
council meeting, and there being no
quorum the government of the city was
at a standstill. And all because of
little sidewalk squabble. 1t seems
that majority of the resident prop
erty owners along Sixth street signed
a petition for walk down toward the
new union depot, and the same
was reported favorbly upon. by the
street committtee-Messrs keller,
Hawn and Isackson. Afterward Mr..
Keller changed his mind in regard to
the matter, and appeared to argue
against the walk. Aldermen Keller
and Hull, in the the absence of Mr..
Marker, refused to attend the council
meetings. Mayor Thorson made three
attempts during the week to secure a
quorum, and finally caused formal
summons to be issued upon each of
the recreant members. This they al
so disobeyed, and would not 60 into
the council room until the return of
Mr.. Marker from the Huron encamp-
ment. But last Saturday evening the
council met in special session, with all
members present. The ordinance for
the construction of the Sixth street
walk was tabled, although but few
moments afterward couple of lengthy
walks in other portions of the city
were ordered. Alderman Keller, who
had reported favorably on the Sixth
street walk, voted against his own re-
port. The ordinance now lies on the
table, and may be called up at any
time, however.
Perhaps Messrs Keller, Marker and
Hull have good personal reasons for
their action, and feel they are in the
right. But personal reasons should
not enter into the minds of public
servant in the discharge of his official
duty. These three gentlemen were
elected by the people to act for the
people. What Aldermen Keller, Hawn,
Isackson, Hull, Marker and Mayor
Thorson may want is not the point in
argument. They have no more NOR
al right to build, (or defeat the con-
struction off, a sidewalk than any other
person in the city of Canton. The loca-
ton of walk in the city is mere
formality upon the part of an alder
man. According to the city charter a
majority of the property owners sign a
petition for walk and the council
assumes merely the duties of salaried
clerk in carrying out the wishes and
demands of his employer. Speaking
plainly, Aldermen Keller, Marker and
Hull are the servants-hirelings
you may say-of THE ADVOCATE,
Mayor Thorson, the tradesmen and
the people of Canton. Their position,
of course, brings them no revenue and
| the Office is a thankless honor at best.
But that is not the question. They
have accepted the honors and should
fill the position according to law. The
people of Canton have no rope on the
mayor and aldermen, and they may
resign in body whenever the duties
become irksome. If, by their vote. the
council should become enabled to pass
an illegal or obnoxious ordinance the
property owners would not be compel
led to build the walk. The charter
cannot be misconstrued on the side
walk question. If the petition is all
right the walk must be built, and the
council in its austeie mightiness can
say nothing. THE ADVOCATE knows
nothing about the particular walk in
question, and cares less. We have
not looked into the legality of the petit
tion, nor taken the pains to inquire Us
to the exact location of the proposed
walk. But we do see q principle in
volved that is just as important IS the
introduction Of a $25,OOO system Of
waterworks, and would like to see the
government of this city conducted
upon business and legal basis. II
the petition is entirely legal, pass the
ordinance. If it is not legal, vote II
down at once and be done with tho